ADVOCATE FOR NONSMOKERS

Santa Clara, which in 1993 approved one of California's strictest anti-smoking ordinances, now is taking steps to repeal it, a reversal that anti-smoking advocates fear could signal a trend.

"I'm worried about a stampede effect," said Kevin Goebel, manager of legislative programs for Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights in Berkeley. "Once a few cities do this, the others will think they have to go along."

The temptation for cities such as Santa Clara is to repeal their stricter local laws to conform with the state's anti-smoking law, AB13, which was approved last year. The state law sets a minimum standard on smoking regulations but allows cities to pass tougher restrictions if they wish.

For example, the state law allows smoking in bars attached to restaurants until Jan. 1, 1997, while Santa Clara's law bans smoking in those bars right now. The state law also permits smoking in rooms where workers take their breaks, which is not the case in Santa Clara.

Santa Clara's anti-smoking rules have made the council few friends in the city's bar and restaurant industry. Owners of local watering holes have bombarded city officials with complaints, warning that the tough regulations are driving their longtime customers to nearby cities where it is easier to light up.

The angry barrage had the desired effect. Last Tuesday night, the council voted 4 to 2 to repeal the local measure entirely. If the council affirms that vote when the measure comes up for a second reading May 23, the city's anti- smoking law will disappear 30 days later.

That day cannot come soon enough for some residents.

Frank Leamy, general manager of Mike's Original By-Th'-Bucket, an Italian restaurant in Santa Clara, has watched 25 percent of his bar business vanish since Santa Clara's ordinance was adopted.

"A lot of our regulars go to San Jose," he said. "And what's worse, they have friends who follow them where they go."

The Santa Clara Elks' Lodge lost about 10 percent of its members last year because the lodge can no longer allow smoking in its bar, said Sheldon Thompson, a spokesman for the lodge. Some of those members moved to lodges in San Jose, Los Gatos and Sunnyvale, all of which allow smoking in separately ventilated and enclosed bars attached to their restaurants.

"A lot of these members are in their 70s and more and they aren't going to change their habits just because the City Council says so," Thompson said.

Thompson is not in favor of repealing Santa Clara's ordinance altogether, just amending it to make it fit with what is allowed elsewhere.

"All we're asking for is a level playing field with surrounding communities," he said.

The battle in Santa Clara has drawn the attention of anti-smoking advocates, who thought their troubles were over last November when California voters decisively defeated Proposition 188. That initiative, which was bankrolled by the tobacco industry, would have rolled back many local anti-smoking ordinances.

Now those same advocates are concerned that Santa Clara and other California cities may be vulnerable to continuing pressure from the business community to back away from their tougher local laws. Some discussion about the impact of the state law already has surfaced in such Southern California cities as Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.

In Concord, the city decided to review its anti-smoking rules after passage of the state's law to see if it should eliminate duplicate sections that make enforcement confusing. However, no one there has yet proposed weakening the local ordinance and replacing it with the state law, said Assistant City Attorney Mark Boehme.

Similar studies are likely in many of the other Bay Area communities with their own anti-smoking rules.

Jack Nicholl, former campaign manager of the No on Proposition 188 effort, believes it is important for cities to keep local rules that are tougher than the state standards.

"AB13 is not bad, but it doesn't go as far as public health patrons would want," he said.

In Santa Clara, the council's switch came when one of two council members elected last November opposed the ban and was joined by two of the original opponents and Councilman David DeLozier, who had voted for the original 1993 law, but with reservations.

DeLozier denied that he has changed his mind, pointing out that he originally pushed successfully to exempt stand-alone bars from the smoking ban.

"I went ahead and voted for (the ordinance) because the only alternative was a total ban," he said. "I said at the time that if an opportunity came to expand the exemptions, I would, and now the opportunity has come, and I did."

Mayor Judy Nadler, who strongly opposes the repeal, said she expects backers of the anti- smoking ordinance to be out in full force at the May 23 meeting in an effort to convince the council members to save the local ordinance.

"I've had a lot of angry phone calls from people who want to know what in the world the council is doing," Nadler said.